None. No provisional application was filed.
1. Field of Invention
This invention relates to collecting athletic performance data, specifically to an improved logging and pacing system that generically works with most exercises.
2. Description of Prior Art
Prior to this invention it has been difficult to collect performance data of one""s exercise regime without an extra person and tedious manual record-keeping. It is desirable to be able to quantify one""s power and ability to do work, and monitor trends over time. This can be manually accomplished by a person with a clipboard writing down weights, and distances for each set plus times for each repetition in the set of a given weight routine. The trainer must then type it all into a computer and graph or analyze it there. For running, a person or persons with stop-watches is required. It is desirable to be able to represent such data visually in graphs in calculated units of work and power for individual exercise stations or for the entire workout session, but without all the manual work and tedium. It is desirable to have a simple, inexpensive approach that will generically work with most types of exercises.
Another important aspect has to do with improving one""s ability to do work (used as a term of physics). It is desirable to design different exercise routines (different combinations and sequences of exercise stations) and compare the ability to do work using these different configurations. Some xe2x80x9ctraditionalxe2x80x9d techniques may under close scrutiny be determined to be ineffective or not optimally effective for a given individual.
For example, one may design an exercise routine that starts with working three exercise stations for upper-body development, and then do three exercise stations specifically for the back. The next day one may do three exercise stations for the abdomen and three exercise stations for the legs. Collect work and power metrics for all the exercise stations. Optionally, total metrics for the two workouts could be calculated. Next, one can modify this workout design so that the first day does three stations for the back and then three for the upper-body (reverse the order). Likewise, for the second day the order is reversed. How do the performance metrics differ? A change in order like this may significantly increase individual performance (as indicated by work and power statistics).
Another example would be to change the number of sets or repetitions or amount of weight for each set to help identify optimal configurations. Or monitor trends over a period of months for established routines. Or refine tapering techniques so that maximal power is available for a crucial competitive event. Currently even the most disciplined record-keeping athletes must largely depend on subjective opinion as to what constitutes their best workout regiment, because they do not do the math and it takes a lot of time to create useful graphs of data. The time would be spent in the record-keeping, and data entry, rather than in the design of better workouts.
It is true the individual athletes can collect some of this data manually themselves, by writing down numbers after a weight-lifting set, or recording a time from a stop-watch a runner carries. This detracts from the athletes concentration and has the same limitations for analysis of requiring mathematics performed to compute work and power metrics, and requiring manual input into a computer. Thus the typical current process supports the analysis of an individual athlete""s performance typically only with gross granularity.
A number of computerized, automating approaches have been suggested. Many approaches use transmitters and receivers, such as U.S. Pat. No. 5,511,045 to Sasaki, Apr. 3, 1996 or U.S. Pat. No. 5,737,280 to Kokubo, Apr. 7, 1998. This approach has limited flexibility and is complicated to implement. Typically a network of transmitters or terminals must exist (complicated) and it is hard to apply the approach generically to any given exercise station (less flexible)xe2x80x94the designs tend to be specific for one task, such as running.
None of the approaches embed small, simple, cheap, magnets along the running track to work with the same generic logging system that is used for other types of exercise stations.
Many approaches require integrating circuitry into the exercise equipment, such as U.S. Pat. No. 6,027,429 to Daniels on Feb. 22, 2000 which provides resistive force feedback to the user. This approach also limits flexibility because the exercise equipment must be modified.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,050,924 to Shea on Apr. 18, 2000 uses a network of terminals to provide information to a user about previous workouts. Once again, this limits flexibility because the device takes time to setup the network or make changes to it, plus it is more complicated and more expensive than having one unit that moves from station-to-station with you.
Another approach, taken by U.S. Pat. No. 5,947,869 to Shea Sep. 7, 1999 allows for a computerized exercise station to accept customized programs for an individual, but once again this approach only works with exercise equipment especially designed for it (limited flexibility).
Heartbeat, respiration, and other physiological data are collected in other approaches such as by U.S. Pat. No. 4,867,442 to Matthews on Sep. 19, 1989 but this does not focus on work and power metrics of the individual in a generic way. The focus here is on the biological stress to the human body, rather than the quantity of external work and power manifested by the body. The additional wires and sensors attaching to the athlete may be a distraction.
In general, the requirements for collecting work and power data for generic exercise repetitions had not currently been met. This requires a stand-alone unit with a sensitive sensor for detecting repetitions at several feet distance, plus a clock mechanism for recording time-stamps. The data must easily be uploaded to a host computer for analysis.
Numerous approaches to pacing systems also exist. Typically these are not dynamic. They set a pace for the user based on a time clock, and do not include input from the user. For example, an audio tone may be generated every three seconds, but the device does not know when the user has completed the desired repetitions. The device cannot tell the user he/she needs to speed up or slow down.
Or, they may have input from the user, such as U.S. Pat. No. 5,490,816 to Sakumoto on Feb. 13, 1996 or U.S. Pat. No. 4,334,190 to Sochaczevski on Jan. 8, 1982 These are based on the approximated length of stride, rather than absolute marked distances such as segments around a running track (the latter patent also uses an inertial mechanical sensor rather than an electronic one). Greater accuracy is obtained by using the absolute marked distances.
Some approaches use a sensor to dynamically collect data, but they require additional devices to interface to the exercise equipment. An example of this would be U.S. Pat. No. 4,780,085 to Malone Oct. 25, 1988 It is used only for swimming, and required a special diving platform to trigger the start of its sensor input. Once again, a generic approach should not require special adapters or modifications to the exercise equipment.
Another limitation of many existing sensor approaches is their range. Many use sensors that have a range of a few inches or less (such as reed switches). To generically handle exercise stations one needs a sensor range of several feet.
Other approaches add features that substantially increase cost and complexity but add little or nothing to the collection of the basic work and power performance data. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,857,939 by Kaufman on Jan. 12, 1999 records a count of iterations based on spoken words. This requires a lot of memory, and expensive voice-recognition circuitry, when a modest sensor circuit will do the same thing.
The computerized performance monitor of U.S. Pat. No. 4,907,795 to Shaw, et al on Apr. 4, 1989 requires electromechanical modifications to a given exercise station to support the use of its infrared sensing system. This limits flexibility once again, and is not a generic approach. It appears to only work with variable-resistance exercise stations that use a chain drive and have been properly modified for use with their device, and it is intended that a separate monitoring screen is placed at each exercise station.
Further, the claims state that it has a removable memory module. Thus, a special device is needed by the host computer to read the contents of the memory module as opposed to merely using a communication cable to read the contents of EEPROM. That approach adds complexity and cost. Further, the claims indicate it keeps data from previous sessions in the device itself so that real-time comparisons can be made during an exercise session and the proposed system does not do this. It is better not to distract the athlete and do all the analysis and comparisons on the host computer.
The claims indicate the current and past performance is analyzed by the device based on percentage difference rather than absolute values. This is a different emphasis from looking at absolute values so as to be able to compare one athlete with another. This system is not a stand-alone, mobile unit, for collecting work and power performance data without making permanent modifications to existing exercise equipment.
The present invention is a computerized, mobile, non-invasive, exercise logging and pacing system. It is non-invasive in the sense that no permanent modifications are needed to a given piece of exercise equipment in order for it to work with the system. It is comprised of a sensor, internal memory, software that controls the entire device and provides logging and pacing logic, a communication interface to a host computer, a display, a keypad or other input device, a controller module, audio and optionally visual cueing devices, and a power supply.
Module: A manufactured combination of parts that can be embedded inside another product.
Subsystem: A combination of components that must be manufactured or assembled as part of the product manufacturing process. The subsystem represents a logically-unified function.
Exercise Station: Location and configuration for performing a specific exercise. An exercise station may contain exercise equipment, such as non-integrated equipment, and supporting equipment such as safety mats. The station may merely be a location for exercises that depend on movement of a body alone, such as push-ups, or kicks, or jogging.
Variable-Resistance Exercise Station: Exercise station upon which a set of specific weight-lifting exercises are possible. The weight is variable and selectable, based upon the number of weighted bars selected. The weighted bars typically move vertically via cable or chain in response to user motion. Numerous station designs support a wide variety of exercises.
Flexible Variable-Resistance Exercise Station: Elastic bands or flexible rods are used to provide resistance. The amount of resistance is typically variable and/or selectable based on the number of bands or rods that are selected.
Repetitive-Motion Exercise: Includes but is not limited to, lap running, dips, boxing, exercise performed on variable-resistance exercise stations or flexible variable-resistance exercise stations or other types of exercise stations, lap swimming, lap running, etc. Any body movement of a cyclic or repetitive nature.
Non-Integrated Equipment: Exercise equipment that is separate, or not permanently attached to the system providing computerization. Exercise equipment not already computerized, plus the human body itself.
This system greatly improves upon manual record-keeping. The system records all repetitions automatically, but does require input of weight and distance of travel (however, some sensing approaches will determine distance of travel too). Additionally it provides a time-stamp for each repetition which currently is not done in a manual process. It can record multiple workout sessions between uploads to a host computer. Uploading to a host computer and graphing of the data can be done simply and quickly. It saves the user from the tedium of typing that data into a host computer for graphing and analysis, and thus makes it more likely that a given athlete will perform graphical analysis of the data. This will give him/her greater insight into how to improve their workout efficacy.
For instance, one theory is that if a person can maintain an optimum power and work balance throughout a workout session, that they will have optimum performance gains. Put another way, the theory is that it is better to do high work with high power rather than maximal work with moderate power (where the work is at peak weight levels, but done slowly). A system such as this will help a user identify their zone of optimum power and work (where they are moving substantial weight a substantial distance and at a substantial rate).
It will help them design a workout by allowing them to manipulating workout variables and then graphically see the impact of their manipulations. Workout variables include such things as: weight, distance of travel, time, order in which exercise stations are visited, number of sets, number of repetitions per set, etc. Their goal may be to manipulate these variables so as to maintain such an optimal zone throughout the entire workout session.
No transmitters or receivers need be permanently installed on the exercise equipment. It is possible that an active component of a given sensing means, or motion sensor, would need to be temporarily affixed to a given piece of exercise equipment. In the case of a running track, magnets would permanently be embedded at set locations along the track, but the magnets do not need power lines or communication lines attached to them and they are far simpler than a transmitter or receiver. No network of devices is necessary. No individual display is necessary at each exercise station is necessary. No permanent modification of an exercise station is necessary. There are no external wires to tangle or present safety hazards. The system can be moved from one exercise station to another and requires a very brief setup time. The system at most requires the placement of a small magnet (if a magnetic sensor is used) on the moving part or body member. The system, as currently embodied using the magnetoresistive sensor has an effective range up to approximately ten feet. Numerous factors tend to reduce this range in practice, but it still has a range of several feet. This is required to handle diverse configurations of equipment. The system has high precision timing accuracy by using a separate clock module. The system is able to differentiate between the moving part or body member to be monitored, and any surrounding equipment or members.
All these features work together to provide a tremendous degree of generic use. It allows the system to work with free-weights, or variable-resistance equipment or flexible-rod/band resistance equipment, or for exercises that require no additional equipment at all. Exercises such as push-ups, or sit-ups, or lap running, or lap swimming can be monitored with this system. The system can log exercises on stationary frames, such as dips. Most repetitive-motion exercises can be logged or paced using this system.
The system records repetitions automatically, and other data can be input quickly with a few button presses. The user can do analysis work quickly after the workout is completed, so as not to detract from the user""s concentration while exercising.
This system focuses on collecting performance metrics relating to work and power that an individual can manifest. For athletes, that is typically their main focus. They tend to care about the end resultxe2x80x94their ability to do high levels of work with high levels of power. Its emphasis is not on monitoring the biological stress of the individual (such as would be seen through heart, respiration, temperature, and other related metrics).
The system can pace an athlete""s workout dynamically. A trainer, or coach, or the user themselves, can provide a pre-programmed exercise routine. Based on the pre-programmed routine the system knows how many repetitions the user is supposed to do before a given set is completed. Based on the sensor input, the system knows when the set is completed. The system can tell the user to go slower or faster based on the sensor input too.
This pacing applies to virtually any of the exercise stations the system will work at, but it may have different embodiments. Pacing can be provided on the running track (see FIG. 4), such as by the system beeping five times and the runner knowing he/she must be over the next embedded magnet by the end of the fifth beep. Note that the pacing is based upon absolute distances on the track, rather than approximations of stride length. Attachments such as a special diving platform (for swimming) or a horizontal rod (for running) to mark the beginning, are not used. Instead, a button is provided for marking the start and stop.
Pacing in the weight room (see FIGS. 2 and 3) typically would be tones. The system can indicate a too slow or too fast pace, or the end of a set, or the beginning or end of a rest period, or when it is time to go to the next exercise station.
Techniques that add complexity and cost but little functionality have been avoided, such as by logging repetitions based on verbal counting. Mechanical sensing approaches have been avoided for improved reliability. Distractions to the athlete, such as graphical displays for the athlete to watch while exercising, real-time comparisons to previous performance, physiology sensors, and the like have been avoided.
Other aspects of this invention will appear from the following description and appended claims, reference being made to the accompanying drawings forming a part of this specification wherein like reference characters designate corresponding points in the several views.